ART. IX.-1. Scripture Linguæque Phænicia Monumenta quotquot supersunt inedita et edita ad autographorum optimorumque Exemplorum fidem edidit, additisque de Scriptura et Lingua Phonicum Commentariis illustravit Guil. Gesenius. 4to Lipsiæ, 1837.

2. Paläographische Studien über phönizische und punische Schrift. Herausgegeben von D. Wilhelm Gesenius. Enthaltend, Imo. Franz Perez Bayer über Schrift und Sprache der Phönizier, aus dem Spanischen, von H. Hollmann, mit Anmerkungen von W. Gesenius; 2do. W. Gesenius über die punischnumidische Schrift, und die damit geschriebenen grösstentheils unerklärten Inschriften und Münzlegenden. 4to. Leipzig. 1835.

A CONSIDERABLE number of years have elapsed since the attention of the learned was first directed to the study of a very interesting branch of archæology and philology, that of Phoenician antiquities. When we reflect what a vast extent of territory the enterprising and commercial spirit of the Tyrians and Carthaginians led them to explore and colonize, we shall be only the more astonished at the comparatively small number of monuments of those great nations which time has spared us. What is left con

sists of a few inscriptions and coins, found principally not where we should a priori anticipate, namely, at the chief cities themselves, but at their distant colonies. The neighbourhood of the few huts which constitute the present Tyre has furnished us with almost nothing to attest the pristine magnificence of the city of the waves. Carthage indeed affords us somewhat more, and the various colonies on the shores and in the islands of the Mediterranean, each furnish us with a small relic of the very interesting nation from whence they sprung. The extreme rarity and obscurity of these monuments adds largely to their interest. It was long ere the utmost sagacity of the learned could decipher and explain their inscriptions. Excepting these and the few verses in the Poenulus of Plautus, nothing whatever remains to give us the most remote idea of the language spoken by the Phoenicians. Their whole literature has perished. We know nothing of it but at second hand through the medium of the Greek and the Latin. We are scarcely acquainted with more than the names of some of their writers, and with but few of those. Sanchuniathon, Theodotus, Hypsicrates, Mochus, Mago, Hamilcar, Hanno, Himiles, Hannibal, and Hiempsal, form the whole catalogue. In this extraordinary dearth the few monuments that do remain acquire a tenfold interest. Many and varied have been the attempts

at interpreting them, but the first inquiries were certainly any thing but successful, and their results to the last degree absurd and extravagant. No fixed principles were ascertained, the power of each letter awarded to it in the most arbitrary manner. An utter disregard was shown to the idiom and genius of the Hebrew language, which it was agreed on all hands afforded the only key to their explanation. The degree of elucidation attained may be guessed when an inscription on a triumphal arch is interpreted by Hamaker to mean "ut precatio propter defectum canalium;" by Lindberg, "torcular reginæ in loco perenni;" by another, "locus ducum Romæ excelsæ," while according to Gesenius it is "principatus imperii Romani stat in æternum." It was not till Bayer and Akerblad entered the field of inquiry that

we find any thing like accuracy resulting. The reasons for these discrepancies are manifest. Gesenius well remarks, that there are four causes in addition to the difficulties inseparable from the nature of the inquiry. The first is the paucity of the means of information, as even now there are not altogether more than about eighty inscriptions and sixty coins, and those moreover scattered through the different museums of Europe. The second cause is the inaccuracy of the copyists in furnishing fac-similies of the inscriptions; and whether that proceeded from haste or negligence, still their integrity and fidelity remained for a long time undoubted it was only by an examination of the monuments themselves that Gesenius has been enabled to discover the mistakes which led Hamaker and others of his predecessors in the field of Phoenician archæology astray: he did not find a single edited inscription which did not swarm with errors. The third cause he states to be the want of any complete exposition of Phoenician palæography. Kopp indeed and Lindberg had made some progress, still there was no great advance to boast of, and the student who addressed himself to this pursuit launched himself upon a sea without pilot or compass to direct him. The fourth and last cause arises from the renewed discussion as to the nature of the dialects spoken at Tyre and Carthage and their dependencies. For although since Bochart's time the learned world had almost universally allowed that the Phoenician language was, with few exceptions, identical with the Hebrew, Hamaker has lately put forth what Gesenius might well call perversam istam et temerariam opinionem;" that it is a com

66

* We must except the lucubrations of Vallancey, strongly as he has been lately supported by Sir W. Betham, as both consider that the Phoenician and Carthaginian language still survives in the Irish. Some little regard must be paid to the pretensions of the Maltese that their idiom is the relic of the language of Tyre.

In both cases we conceive a portion unquestionable, but not at all to the extent asserted.-Ed.

pound of all the various dialects of the Semitic branch. Whether this be correct or not, must of course be determined by an attentive and careful examination of the monuments that remain, and we shall see in the sequel that Hamaker's notion is entirely without foundation.

Under these circumstances, then, it became absolutely necessary, in order to arrive at any accurate knowledge, to revise thoroughly the labours of those who had gone before; and without rejecting any valuable hint and suggestion which they might have thrown out, to submit each individual monument, whether even papyrus or inscription, to a searching, and, as far as possible, a personal examination; this in a great measure Dr. Gesenius has accomplished. We shall endeavour to present our readers with a condensed account of the results of his labours.

As early as the year 1576, Goltzius had given to the public figures and descriptions of various coins having what were deemed Punic inscriptions, in his Historia Siciliæ et Magnæ Græciæ ex numismatibus illustratis. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, indeed, present us with a respectable number of writers on the medals and coins found in Sicily, Spain, Syria; among them may be mentioned the names of Albrete, Agostino, Gesner, Irselith, and Lord Pembroke. Still, however, but little progress had been made it is true, indeed, a number of attempts had been tried to form something like an alphabet from the legends on the coins; yet so far from these attempts being at all successful, not one coin became in the smallest degree more intelligible than it was before. In fact, the alphabets were not Phoenician at all, but, on the contrary, Samaritan, such as is seen on the coins of the Maccabees. It is not until the beginning of the eighteenth century, that the slightest good fortune seems to have crowned the random guesses that were made; and the first probable explanation was put forth by Rhenferd, in his Periculum Phoenicium s. litteraturæ Phoenicia specimine; and Montfaucon was the first to make the lucky guess that the legend on the Sidonian coins must be ready. Further than this, no progress had been made until Swinton in this country, and Barthelemy in France, turned their attention to the bilingual inscription found at Malta in the year 1735, and those discovered in Cyprus by Pococke, and described by him* in the year 1745. These two

The following are the titles of Barthelemy's and Swinton's treatises: Barthelemy Réflexions sur quelques Monumens Phéniciens et sur les Alphabets qui en resultent. Mémoires de l'Acad. des Inscriptions. Tom. xxx. p. 405.

Lettre à M. le Marquis d'Olivieri ou sujet de quelques Monumens Phéniciens. Paris, 1766.

Swinton Inscriptiones Cilicæ s. in tinas Inscriptiones Phoenicias inter rudera Citii, nuper repertas conjecturæ. 1750. Another, on two more inscriptions from the same place, in 1753.

able scholars approached their task with an industry and sagacity almost unparalleled; and having ascertained the true power of a number of the Phoenician letters, they may be said to be indeed the first founders of all Phoenician Palæography. It is to be lamented, that like their predecessors in another species of foundation, Romulus and Remus, a quarrel ensued. A sharp and angry discussion arose between them, both as to the priority of discovery, and likewise as to the interpretation of several monuments. The truth with respect to the first point of dispute seems to be, that to Swinton is due the earliest interpretation; and for the second, that to Barthelemy must be awarded the credit of being the more accurate. Swinton, indeed, seems to have been much more successful in decyphering than in interpreting the inscriptions. After them came Dutens and Bayer, one of whose treatises forms the second heading of our present article, and Pellerin, who collected no less than 33,000 ancient medals and coins. They were followed with equal ardour by Kopp, Tychsen, Akerblad, Sir W. Drummond, Bellermann, Gesenius, and Peyron: monuments and inscriptions multiplied, and new forces were brought to bear upon the matter; still, however, it appears that like their predecessors, most of the writers on the subject seem to have found it a much easier matter to make out each individual letter, than to discover the signification of the mysterious writings which they had so far at least stripped of somewhat of their obscurity. We shall not, however, incumber our pages with a catalogue of all the ingenious authors who have written upon this matter, but must refer our readers to the work of Dr. Gesenius which heads our article. Still the names of Kopp, Eckhel, Quatremère, cannot be passed without mention. The first certainly is one whose writings, though of but trivial extent, form quite an epoch in this most interesting branch of study; the second is, if anything, rather too fastidious, and inclined to be hypercritical.

One of the first subjects of inquiry is, in what regions did the Phoenician language prevail as the idiom of the inhabitants; and was the method of writing, that is, the alphabet used, identical in all? The latter part of the question may be shortly answered; for wherever one language was spoken it is most likely that one alphabet was in use: and with respect to the first we may assume

A Dissertation upon the Phoenician Numeral Characters anciently used at Sidon. Philos. Transact. vol. 50, p. 791.

An attempt to explain a Punic Inscription lately discovered in the Island of Malta. Ibid. vol. 53. p. 274.

Some remarks on the first part of M. l'Abbé Barthelemy's Memoir on the Phoe nician Letters, &c. Ibid. vol. 54, p. 119.

Further remarks, &c. Ibid. p. 393. 438.

that wherever a monument or monuments containing Phoenician inscriptions have been found, it is probable that the Phoenician language was spoken in that region, or at least that those who spoke it occasionally resided there or visited it. But then it may be objected, that if the Phoenician be identical with the Hebrew, how comes it that the latter language is written in an entirely different character? It is undoubtedly true that at a certain epoch the Jews ceased making use of their ancient alphabet, and adopted the square Aramæan character. This is supposed to have occurred after their return from the Babylonian captivity.

The most ancient document containing Phoenician characters that has hitherto been found is a Cilico-Phoenician medal, struck apparently in celebration of the naval victory of the Persians at Cnidus, in the third year of the ninety-sixth Olympiad, or 394 A.C.; and the most modern is an inscription on a triumphal arch erected at Tripoli in the reign of the Emperor Septimius Severus, A.D. 203. This is embracing a period of nearly six hundred years, during which we are quite certain that the Phoenician language prevailed; and there is every reason to believe that it was spoken and written at a much earlier as well as much later date.

As we before remarked, the enterprising mercantile genius of the Tyrians, and their descendants the Carthaginians, carried their language, manners, and habits, throughout a range of territory comprising a very large portion of the then known habitable part of the world. Starting from their island city on the western coast of Syria, they in succession visited and colonized almost every island and shore of the Mediterranean, and, boldly venturing beyond the pillars of Hercules, founded Cadiz, the ancient Gadir or Gades ; it is also believed that trusting themselves to the winds and waves of the Atlantic they even visited our own islands. With Dr. Gesenius however for our guide, we shall proceed to take a survey of the several localities in which it is absolutely certain that the use of that dialect of the great Syrian idiom, called Phoenician, at one time or other obtained. Our own opinion is, that instead of its being a language of itself, properly so called, it was only a branch of that spoken in the wide territory stretching from very far beyond the western boundaries of Persia at least, to the Mediterranean, and once as nearly related to, if not identical with Hebrew, as the English of Middlesex is to that of Surrey.

"That the Phoenician and Punic bore considerable affinity to the Hebrew tongue, Jerome and Augustin, of ancient authorities, have remarked more than once-the latter indeed is a high authority on the subject, as living when the Punic tongue flourished in Africa. He owns